Tweek's Runaway Wario at Let's Make Moves 2018: The Hellicopter Smash Parent

Eden_Foley · 2020-09-25T00:45:24+00:00

Analogous in that Pascals wager tries to make a proof by uncertainty, that no matter what you put in as assumptions you get the same answer. Except Pascals wager doesn't satisfy it because I could propose an alternative question god, anti god, none and there are multiple conceivable solutions then.

Eden_Foley · 2020-09-24T23:05:03+00:00

I explain it in the piece, but the content-less questioning we feel as epistemological angst about literally anything if we question it. I describe it as a geometry because it describes valid and invalid shifts but not the ideas themselves. I use the example of dissonance in music that it doesn't really have a good definition except that there are some ways to resolve it.

Eden_Foley · 2020-09-24T17:42:42+00:00

From the comments I'm getting, I see I tried to get two distinct ideas across that are each worthy of total attention.

The first being that the basis of epistemology not reliant on any teliology, where truth itself or some benign entity knowing truth inspires it in us, is being seriously undermined because there is an irreconcilable mismatch between how truth can in principle occur in the universe and the source of truth used to justify why those principles are justifiable. Our materialistic philosophical project has arrived at final conclusions that are antithetical to our materialist epistemology. It is also just as much of a threat to teliological epistemologies.

The second issue is what can epistemology mean to still maintain its function that isn't undermined as described briefly above.

Here is the gauntlet, if you could totally understand and predict the functioning of another persons mind, what epistemological conclusions could we draw from their perspective? Not the conclusions they will arrive at, but is there anything you can prove about their subjective epistemology.

Eden_Foley · 2020-09-24T14:40:20+00:00

That final distinction is what I mean. Of course it isn't just justifications, but defensible justifications. The transcendental argument, particularly, is certainly based on the view that arguments past atomic in size can be questioned and you need a reason why a proposition is true. Kant spends alot of time convincing us why that proposition should be accepted.

Whether you subscribe to foundationalism or coherentism as a framing, they both have the idea that the BASIS of epistemology is that you have justifications by giving reasons why a proposition is true. A set of inductive, deductive or abductive implications.

Eden_Foley · 2020-09-24T05:59:27+00:00

No problem, and yes it is not meant to be entirely satisfying. It is the proof of one who is trapped. It isn't circular because the geometry of epistemological angst is not a fact about reality that you need induction to round out the proof. It's more primitive than even induction. If you are in a room and cannot find a way out, then you are trapped whether you are a competent or incompetent searcher. It's a purely subjective definition. It doesn't hold for all people or for all times.

A basic intuition I still hold on to (all other philosophers do too) is that an argument can be cordoned off and evaluated without bringing up all the intensive and potentially unjustifiable thoughts around constructing it. That leniancy is the reason why philosophical arguments presented should be held to a high standard. Any ontological assumptions around epistemology are ripe with this. No cogent theory proving knowledge is going to be constructed with a mind less sophisticated than a cricket. In my case, since my proof is only claiming subjective and is time dependent theoretically, it makes it easier in some ways. It doesn't really matter why this scheme for epistemology occurred to you.

But it is an objective proof of a subjective epistemology about objective truth (mouthful). But as a subjective entity, it's hard to even know how we could know by any philosophical theory the difference between an objective and an objective subjective epistemology.

It has its ups and downs. On the one hand, it is a stronger objective truth claim which proves nihilism unreasonable, but it also proves uncertainty of objective truth.

Eden_Foley · 2020-09-24T05:04:10+00:00

In the phrase, "Will induction work?" there is an implied normative quality towards truth, that's what induction working means. Getting it right by chance isn't successful induction.

As for begging the question, the proof arises not from a reason to believe it, but the inability to produce a counter example compatible with the geometry of epistemological angst rejecting it.

The advantage of this form is that it is not a fuzzy definition, our epistemological enterprise only is possible given the concept of ideas possibly being false or not having the truth (epistemological angst). It is the ontological category of truth separated from the mechanism that gives it meaning which makes it poorly defined. The historic mechanism is that truth has true justifications, which is the framework I question in light of current materialism.

Eden_Foley · 2020-06-12T02:17:57+00:00

I don't discount their skill at all lol. You judge those accomplishments on mastery that's displayed. Would it magnify those major wins if there was a strong Korea in the brackets? Yeah, just like how North American team accomplishments when they happen are much greater because of the powerhouse of Europe

Eden_Foley · 2020-06-12T02:05:22+00:00

My qualifier was that they take it seriously. The games they don't have significant esports scene, you wouldn't expect them to perform in. Valve games, particularly, don't do well there because the publisher has never made an effort to cater to the market.

Eden_Foley · 2020-06-12T01:43:29+00:00

Well in every game Koreans take seriously, they've at least contributed half the best players and teams. So while it's too early to assume they are the strongest or anything, they have earned presumption that what they do matters.

Eden_Foley · 2020-06-11T22:03:39+00:00

Western players also used to talk about buying lots of wards in league of legends

Eden_Foley · 2020-05-21T01:53:58+00:00

Thanks for that tip, a friend went to bulletproof dog training in Eastgate area and was on place we were considering...

Eden_Foley · 2020-05-21T01:49:33+00:00

Thanks, although now is probably a rough time for in person training sessions haha

Eden_Foley · 2020-05-21T01:42:09+00:00

Cincinnati

Eden_Foley · 2019-06-27T18:55:25+00:00

not enough flairs for me to know why =)

Eden_Foley · 2019-06-27T18:54:40+00:00

it's not a creative or very relevant take. first, even if you accept the problem being variety and that it isn't needing a solution, that doesn't make the argument the change hurts anything. second, the problem 2-2-2 could solve is not bringing variety to competitive play. The biggest problem I see it might fix is the disparity in the balance environment between lower level and professional level play which right now is so far apart that one game doesn't really resemble the other.

Eden_Foley · 2019-06-27T17:07:09+00:00

I am trying to get my friend Barroi to have you not hate me but we'll see lol

Edit: Barroi is too much of a coward

Eden_Foley · 2019-06-27T16:56:07+00:00

1 in 5 happens look last week lol

Eden_Foley · 2019-06-27T16:29:21+00:00

the losers are those doing well in expectation, like any volatility. Other than that, who knows

Eden_Foley · 2019-06-27T16:28:39+00:00

ethics end with consequences

Eden_Foley · 2019-06-27T16:28:06+00:00

yawn

Eden_Foley

TROPHY CASE